Reduced Till (NRCS #345)

Applicable Systems

Jump to: Benefits/Limitations Impact Applicability Case Studies Resources

About

Reduced till¹ is a conservation tillage practice in which crop and other plant residue on the soil surface are managed year-round with relatively minimal soil disturbance during seedbed preparation and crop establishment. Reduced tillage is often referred to as minimum tillage, which includes strip-till, ridge-till, and mulch-till, among others. Tillage is usually limited to the strip row, and residue left on the ground serves as mulch to protect the soil.

Key aspects and considerations:

Use discs and tines to limit soil disturbance to shallow depths (2-4 inches).
Reduce tillage operations or number of field passes.
Maintain at least 30% residue cover.
Remove residues from row area prior to planting if needed.
Distribute residues uniformly across the field.
Ensure adequate amounts of residue are produced.
Cultivate multiple crops in rotation.
Maintain year-round coverage with living vegetation.
Do not burn residues.
Consider implementing no-till in combination with additional conservation practices.

Benefits and Limitations

ACRE Category	Benefits	Limitations
Soil Health	Reduces sheet, rill and wind erosion due to surface residue cover. Preserves and improves soil structure. Decreases sediment transportation through runoff. Maintains or increases soil organic matter and avoids carbon loss. Conserves soil moisture.	May delay soil warming during spring.
Water Management	Reduces runoff. Increases water infiltration and retention. Decreases evaporation due to surface residue. Increases water storage in soil and plant-available moisture. Improves water quality.	N/A
Nutrient Management	Reduces nutrient loss. Increases nutrient cycling through decomposition of organic residues.	N/A
Agricultural Production	Can increase crop productivity over time.	Crop yields are often reduced during the transition to a new system. Requires alternative methods for weed control, which may become more dependent on herbicides. Residues can interfere with planting operations. Requires time and effort to learn the new system. Increases management.
Biodiversity and Wildlife	Improves habitat loss or degradation due to less soil disturbance. Enhances soil biota and wildlife.	N/A
GHG Emission	Decreases GHG emissions due to reduced use of machinery and tillage. More carbon is retained instead of quickly released by fast residues decomposition on soil surface. Optimizing N fertilizer inputs can reduce N₂O emissions.	Requires measuring carbon at depth to evaluate impacts on GHG balance. No-till systems can be either neutral or a small net source of GHG emissions if a cover crop is added to the system². There are inconsistent results in the literature about decrease or increase of N₂O emissions². N₂O emissions are not substantially impacted by tillage type and cover crop presence over the long term in corn and soybean rotations³.
Economics	Can reduce fuel, machinery, and labor costs by reducing trips across the fields compared with conventional tillage. Reduces operating costs and increases returns for corn and soybeans in comparison to conventional tillage across the Midwest.	Requires initial investment in specialized equipment and inputs related to the transition to the new system.

Impact on Agricultural Resilience

Increases plant resilience to drought and flooding due to increased water holding capacity and enhanced drainage.
Generates cumulative improvements in soil function and yield resilience.
Soil becomes healthier and recovers faster after disturbances.

Regional Applicability

Reductions in tillage intensity, combined with higher crop yields and better equipment, can contribute to sustained increases in soil organic carbon in the US Midwest⁴.
A framework based on satellite imagery and machine learning to monitor conservation tillage practices was developed by researchers at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. The new technology will help to monitor conservation practices over large areas for long periods of time.
A study with data collected from seven farmers across the Midwest reported that reduced tillage had reduced operating costs and increased economic returns for corn and soybeans in comparison to conventional tillage. The return for corn averaged $377/acre for reduced tillage and $324/acre for conventional tillage, and returns for soybeans averaged $251/acre for reduced tillage compared to $216/acre for conventional tillage.

Case Studies

Todd Ballard, a farmer in Kimberly, Idaho, reduced soil tilling on his farming system to maximize soil health benefits and reduce costs. "We believe in soil health practices because we see firsthand the difference it makes for our crops and bottom line."

Resources

Video. NCAT ATTRA: NRCS Practice 345. Reduced Tillage
Ohio State University Extension: AgBMPs. Tillage Intensity to Maintain Target Residue Cover (NRCS 329, 345 & 346)
Research for Agriculture: No-Till and Reduced Tillage Farming: Revolutionizing Modern Agriculture Through Sustainable Soil Management
Stanford University, Science and Engineering: Reduced soil tilling helps both soils and yields, Stanford researchers find
The booklet Residue Management Choices: A Guide to Managing Crop Residues in Corn and Soybeans helps producers get started by pointing out some common tillage systems and answering some questions when getting started.

References

USDA-NRCS (2016). Conservation Practice Standard Document, Residue and Tillage Management, Reduced Till, Code 345. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Residue_And_Tillage_Management_Reduced_Till_345_CPS.pdf
Basso, B., Cates, A., Li, J., Brewer, K., Tiemann, L., & Millar, N. (2025). Soil Health and Climate Outcomes: Literature Review and Technical Guidance. Technical Advisory Network for Climate Smart Agricultural Practices. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17534271
Gelfand, I., Sahajpal, R., Zhang, X., Izaurralde, R. C., Gross, K. L., & Robertson, G. P. (2013). Sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the US Midwest. Nature 493, 514-517. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11811
Joshi, D. R., Clay, D. E., Alverson, R., Clay, S. A., Westhoff, S., Johnson, J. M. F., Wang, T., & Sieverding, H. (2025). Tillage intensity reductions when combined with yield increases may slow soil carbon saturation in the central United States. Scientific Reports 15, 10697. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-95388-x
Adam, B. (2023). Minimum tillage as climate-smart agriculture practice and its impact on food and nutrition security. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0287441
Miller, T.P., Peterson, J.R., Lenhart, C.F. & Nomura, Y. (2012). The Agricultural BMP Handbook for Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, p.94-98. https://wrl.mnpals.net/_flysystem/fedora/2023-09/the-agricultural-bmp-handbook-for-minnesota.pdf#page=95
USDA-NRCS (2016). Conservation Practice Overview, Residue and Tillage Management, Reduced Till (Code 345). https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Residue_And_Tillage_Management_Reduced_Till_345_PS_Sept_2016.pdf
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and University of Wisconsin-Extension (2000). Residue Management Choices: A Guide to Managing Crop Residues in Corn and Soybeans. https://mssoy.org/sites/default/files/documents/crop-residues-uwex-nrcs.pdf

View All Systems View All Practices

Reduced Till photo 1 — Photo 1: Corn is planted using strip-tillage in an Iowa field.

Iowa NRCS photo by Jason Johnson.

Reduced Till photo 2 — Photo 2: A strip-tilled field (right) with higher amount of crop residue left behind compared to a conventionally tilled field (left).

Iowa NRCS photo by Jason Johnson.